Over and over again we see the same crap argument: forcing someone TO DO something is the same thing as forcing someone NOT to do something. That's a garbage argument, pure and simple.

taking someone's stuff by force is the same thing as someone trying to keep his stuff by force. Garbage.

Welcome to the destruction of reason.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Over and over again we see the same crap argument: forcing someone TO DO something is the same thing as forcing someone NOT to do something. That's a garbage argument, pure and simple.

taking someone's stuff by force is the same thing as someone trying to keep his stuff by force. Garbage.

Welcome to the destruction of reason.

...

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Vemoi

Originally posted by Sabiancym

He wants to eliminate it by making the public option the better choice.  It's simple competition.  One that I support.

 

And that was quite the editing job.  I can make Sarah paling say she supports gay marriage and late term abortions using all her speeches if you want.

 

And it's not on the news because we are all out to get you Faxxer.  Run.

 

Spoken like a true leftist. Obama and the rest of the democrats are lieing their ass off, saying you can keep your insurance if you want and you are fine with that. Whatever it takes right?! BS the people as long as they can get this through.

Here is anothor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

"spoken life a true leftist" isnt an argument.
Youtube is not a reliable source of information.
Claiming obama lies according to yourself is AGAIN not a credible source of information.

You're an idiot.
Let me qualify that statement the same way you qualify yours.
"because I said it."

WOW, now things are really getting accomplished. Why do we even bother with debating, this is so much more efficient!
Go crawl back into whatever hole you came from Vemoi.

wow you really look like an ass here...

The VID from youtube was posted on there from ANOTHER news source...

had you actually watched it, you'd have seen barney frank admitting their agenda is a long well planned multiple year attempt to get us to single payer system, in other words so idiots can understand it... you lose all choice and are forced to a government run system.

But if you need to dismiss and name call to make yourself feel better, please continue.

your qualifying statement lacks the primary ingredient for authority....fact. 

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

Sorry, his job is not to control the means of production. his job is to protectdefend and protect the constitution of the united states, which does not give the government control over the means of production, but leaves that to the people.

Sorry nothing you are saying is making any sense. very single economic conservative on these forums is against the government controlling. owning the means of production -- all of us believe that the means of production should be held by private citizens and controlled by private citizens and the purpose of government is only to protect that relationship.

Basically you are playing the same deconstructionist game that I see evry socialist on this site play time and again. Sorry it is wrong and very polarizing. Typical of socialist thinking.

I did not say Barack Obama was a PURE socialist -- which is the only kind of socialist that you will acceot bein g a socialt -- more deconstructionism to destroy concepts to hide what you believe in. Sorry, I'm not fooled.

If it upsets you so much, maybe you need to move on.

I said I am honest because you have NOT declared yourself, just played the attack game and the deconstructionist game. That makes you at the very least someone who hides his intentions.

I know the world is grey. Liberty is white, tyranny is black, and socialism is a dark, smokey charcoal grey. I don't like that. I want it to be a light grey at worst. Hence I advocate liberty and am against socialism.

Why didn't you just say: "Obama is a socialist but not a pure one." or "Obama is not a pure socialist." from the get-go?

The only thing I'm deconstructing is the fact that you're using one wrong term. Now you've already said Obama is not a PURE socialist. Even if you did say he was a socialist earlier on (which, without further definitions, means the he is a pure socialist). Now you still haven't stated what kind of socialist he is. Egalitarian? Libertarian? Social democrat(which I personally think you're getting at)? Why leave everyone speculating if he wants to allocate the control of ALL production in the USA.

I connected you with intellectual dishonesty(not personal dishonesty since you do seem very convinced by your own rhetoric) because you seem like you use debate tactics. And I still do until you clarify this.

Also following very hard-to-achieve and hard-to-define values such as freedom and liberty is something I wouldn't recommend. What do you mean by freedom? Full control of personal circumstance? This can only exist if there is nobody else around, if you play everyone around you and they approve(in which case they don't really have the freedom to choose to be played by you) or if you fully understand all people around you. Just like pure socialism doesn't exist, neither does pure freedom or liberty. And that's something you're also advocating by not putting it into context (you haven't defined your branch of libertarianism yet, for example).

By not providing context, you're being polarizing. And you're doing it deliberately.

Originally posted by Babbuun

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

Sorry, his job is not to control the means of production. his job is to protectdefend and protect the constitution of the united states, which does not give the government control over the means of production, but leaves that to the people.

Sorry nothing you are saying is making any sense. very single economic conservative on these forums is against the government controlling. owning the means of production -- all of us believe that the means of production should be held by private citizens and controlled by private citizens and the purpose of government is only to protect that relationship.

Basically you are playing the same deconstructionist game that I see evry socialist on this site play time and again. Sorry it is wrong and very polarizing. Typical of socialist thinking.

I did not say Barack Obama was a PURE socialist -- which is the only kind of socialist that you will acceot bein g a socialt -- more deconstructionism to destroy concepts to hide what you believe in. Sorry, I'm not fooled.

If it upsets you so much, maybe you need to move on.

I said I am honest because you have NOT declared yourself, just played the attack game and the deconstructionist game. That makes you at the very least someone who hides his intentions.

I know the world is grey. Liberty is white, tyranny is black, and socialism is a dark, smokey charcoal grey. I don't like that. I want it to be a light grey at worst. Hence I advocate liberty and am against socialism.

 

Why didn't you just say: "Obama is a socialist but not a pure one." or "Obama is not a pure socialist." from the get-go?

The only thing I'm deconstructing is the fact that you're using one wrong term. Now you've already said Obama is not a PURE socialist. Even if you did say he was a socialist earlier on (which, without further definitions, means the he is a pure socialist). Now you still haven't stated what kind of socialist he is. Egalitarian? Libertarian? Social democrat(which I personally think you're getting at)? Why leave everyone speculating if he wants to allocate the control of ALL production in the USA.

I connected you with intellectual dishonesty(not personal dishonesty since you do seem very convinced by your own rhetoric) because you seem like you use debate tactics. And I still do until you clarify this.

Also following very hard-to-achieve and hard-to-define values such as freedom and liberty is something I wouldn't recommend. What do you mean by freedom? Full control of personal circumstance? This can only exist if there is nobody else around, if you play everyone around you and they approve(in which case they don't really have the freedom to choose to be played by you) or if you fully understand all people around you. Just like pure socialism doesn't exist, neither does pure freedom or liberty. And that's something you're also advocating by not putting it into context (you haven't defined your branch of libertarianism yet, for example).

By not providing context, you're being polarizing. And you're doing it deliberately.

This reminds me of the 2nd play out of Liberal tactics playbook...

The art of splitting hairs over definitions....this way the ACTUAL topic gets bypassed altogether....  

ball in your court now.

Originally posted by Babbuun

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

Sorry, his job is not to control the means of production. his job is to protectdefend and protect the constitution of the united states, which does not give the government control over the means of production, but leaves that to the people.

Sorry nothing you are saying is making any sense. very single economic conservative on these forums is against the government controlling. owning the means of production -- all of us believe that the means of production should be held by private citizens and controlled by private citizens and the purpose of government is only to protect that relationship.

Basically you are playing the same deconstructionist game that I see evry socialist on this site play time and again. Sorry it is wrong and very polarizing. Typical of socialist thinking.

I did not say Barack Obama was a PURE socialist -- which is the only kind of socialist that you will acceot bein g a socialt -- more deconstructionism to destroy concepts to hide what you believe in. Sorry, I'm not fooled.

If it upsets you so much, maybe you need to move on.

I said I am honest because you have NOT declared yourself, just played the attack game and the deconstructionist game. That makes you at the very least someone who hides his intentions.

I know the world is grey. Liberty is white, tyranny is black, and socialism is a dark, smokey charcoal grey. I don't like that. I want it to be a light grey at worst. Hence I advocate liberty and am against socialism.

 

Why didn't you just say: "Obama is a socialist but not a pure one." or "Obama is not a pure socialist." from the get-go?

The only thing I'm deconstructing is the fact that you're using one wrong term. Now you've already said Obama is not a PURE socialist. Even if you did say he was a socialist earlier on (which, without further definitions, means the he is a pure socialist). Now you still haven't stated what kind of socialist he is. Egalitarian? Libertarian? Social democrat(which I personally think you're getting at)? Why leave everyone speculating if he wants to allocate the control of ALL production in the USA.

I connected you with intellectual dishonesty(not personal dishonesty since you do seem very convinced by your own rhetoric) because you seem like you use debate tactics. And I still do until you clarify this.

Also following very hard-to-achieve and hard-to-define values such as freedom and liberty is something I wouldn't recommend. What do you mean by freedom? Full control of personal circumstance? This can only exist if there is nobody else around, if you play everyone around you and they approve(in which case they don't really have the freedom to choose to be played by you) or if you fully understand all people around you. Just like pure socialism doesn't exist, neither does pure freedom or liberty. And that's something you're also advocating by not putting it into context (you haven't defined your branch of libertarianism yet, for example).

By not providing context, you're being polarizing. And you're doing it deliberately.

I said obama is not a pure socialist several times. I don't know or care what "kind" of socialist he is. If you want to know what I mean when I speak, go back in time, read my thousands of posts, and discover the context. YOU chose to butt into a conversation and attack. Have fun doing your research. The information you seek is available to you. Enjoy.

However, what you arae saying, which is a totally crap argument, is that if I do not write a declaratory essay about everything I mean every time I post, I am being "polarizing." That is pure crap.

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Babbuun

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

Sorry, his job is not to control the means of production. his job is to protectdefend and protect the constitution of the united states, which does not give the government control over the means of production, but leaves that to the people.

Sorry nothing you are saying is making any sense. very single economic conservative on these forums is against the government controlling. owning the means of production -- all of us believe that the means of production should be held by private citizens and controlled by private citizens and the purpose of government is only to protect that relationship.

Basically you are playing the same deconstructionist game that I see evry socialist on this site play time and again. Sorry it is wrong and very polarizing. Typical of socialist thinking.

I did not say Barack Obama was a PURE socialist -- which is the only kind of socialist that you will acceot bein g a socialt -- more deconstructionism to destroy concepts to hide what you believe in. Sorry, I'm not fooled.

If it upsets you so much, maybe you need to move on.

I said I am honest because you have NOT declared yourself, just played the attack game and the deconstructionist game. That makes you at the very least someone who hides his intentions.

I know the world is grey. Liberty is white, tyranny is black, and socialism is a dark, smokey charcoal grey. I don't like that. I want it to be a light grey at worst. Hence I advocate liberty and am against socialism.

 

Why didn't you just say: "Obama is a socialist but not a pure one." or "Obama is not a pure socialist." from the get-go?

The only thing I'm deconstructing is the fact that you're using one wrong term. Now you've already said Obama is not a PURE socialist. Even if you did say he was a socialist earlier on (which, without further definitions, means the he is a pure socialist). Now you still haven't stated what kind of socialist he is. Egalitarian? Libertarian? Social democrat(which I personally think you're getting at)? Why leave everyone speculating if he wants to allocate the control of ALL production in the USA.

I connected you with intellectual dishonesty(not personal dishonesty since you do seem very convinced by your own rhetoric) because you seem like you use debate tactics. And I still do until you clarify this.

Also following very hard-to-achieve and hard-to-define values such as freedom and liberty is something I wouldn't recommend. What do you mean by freedom? Full control of personal circumstance? This can only exist if there is nobody else around, if you play everyone around you and they approve(in which case they don't really have the freedom to choose to be played by you) or if you fully understand all people around you. Just like pure socialism doesn't exist, neither does pure freedom or liberty. And that's something you're also advocating by not putting it into context (you haven't defined your branch of libertarianism yet, for example).

By not providing context, you're being polarizing. And you're doing it deliberately.

 

This reminds me of the 2nd play out of Liberal tactics playbook...

The art of splitting hairs over definitions....this way the ACTUAL topic gets bypassed altogether....  

ball in your court now.

Also it is the person who requires a COMPLETE explanation of everything everyone means in order to be able to speak, thus a shabby, lazy, childish way of shutting down discussion. It's pure garbage.

Let me remove this before a mod does :P

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Vemoi

Originally posted by Sabiancym

He wants to eliminate it by making the public option the better choice.  It's simple competition.  One that I support.

 

And that was quite the editing job.  I can make Sarah paling say she supports gay marriage and late term abortions using all her speeches if you want.

 

And it's not on the news because we are all out to get you Faxxer.  Run.

 

Spoken like a true leftist. Obama and the rest of the democrats are lieing their ass off, saying you can keep your insurance if you want and you are fine with that. Whatever it takes right?! BS the people as long as they can get this through.

Here is anothor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

"spoken life a true leftist" isnt an argument.
Youtube is not a reliable source of information.
Claiming obama lies according to yourself is AGAIN not a credible source of information.

You're an idiot.
Let me qualify that statement the same way you qualify yours.
"because I said it."

WOW, now things are really getting accomplished. Why do we even bother with debating, this is so much more efficient!
Go crawl back into whatever hole you came from Vemoi.

 

wow you really look like an ass here...

The VID from youtube was posted on there from ANOTHER news source...

had you actually watched it, you'd have seen barney frank admitting their agenda is a long well planned multiple year attempt to get us to single payer system, in other words so idiots can understand it... you lose all choice and are forced to a government run system.

But if you need to dismiss and name call to make yourself feel better, please continue.

your qualifying statement lacks the primary ingredient for authority....fact. 

lol; Why would I even bother trying to rebut this? Not logic or reason would change your mind.
When will you realize I don't actually care what you have to say; I just enjoy picking out the glaring logical fallacies in hopes that somebody else gets a good cheap laugh like I do.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/r2streu/2009/07/30/rahm_s_brother_and_the_rationed_care_lifeboat
 

Yes a good laugh indeed.

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Vemoi

Originally posted by Sabiancym

He wants to eliminate it by making the public option the better choice.  It's simple competition.  One that I support.

 

And that was quite the editing job.  I can make Sarah paling say she supports gay marriage and late term abortions using all her speeches if you want.

 

And it's not on the news because we are all out to get you Faxxer.  Run.

 

Spoken like a true leftist. Obama and the rest of the democrats are lieing their ass off, saying you can keep your insurance if you want and you are fine with that. Whatever it takes right?! BS the people as long as they can get this through.

Here is anothor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

"spoken life a true leftist" isnt an argument.
Youtube is not a reliable source of information.
Claiming obama lies according to yourself is AGAIN not a credible source of information.

You're an idiot.
Let me qualify that statement the same way you qualify yours.
"because I said it."

WOW, now things are really getting accomplished. Why do we even bother with debating, this is so much more efficient!
Go crawl back into whatever hole you came from Vemoi.

 

wow you really look like an ass here...

The VID from youtube was posted on there from ANOTHER news source...

had you actually watched it, you'd have seen barney frank admitting their agenda is a long well planned multiple year attempt to get us to single payer system, in other words so idiots can understand it... you lose all choice and are forced to a government run system.

But if you need to dismiss and name call to make yourself feel better, please continue.

your qualifying statement lacks the primary ingredient for authority....fact. 

lol; Why would I even bother trying to rebut this? Not logic or reason would change your mind.
When will you realize I don't actually care what you have to say; I just enjoy picking out the glaring logical fallacies in hopes that somebody else gets a good cheap laugh like I do.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/r2streu/2009/07/30/rahm_s_brother_and_the_rationed_care_lifeboat
 

Yes a good laugh indeed.

 

The irony is delicious.

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Vemoi

Originally posted by Sabiancym

He wants to eliminate it by making the public option the better choice.  It's simple competition.  One that I support.

 

And that was quite the editing job.  I can make Sarah paling say she supports gay marriage and late term abortions using all her speeches if you want.

 

And it's not on the news because we are all out to get you Faxxer.  Run.

 

Spoken like a true leftist. Obama and the rest of the democrats are lieing their ass off, saying you can keep your insurance if you want and you are fine with that. Whatever it takes right?! BS the people as long as they can get this through.

Here is anothor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

"spoken life a true leftist" isnt an argument.
Youtube is not a reliable source of information.
Claiming obama lies according to yourself is AGAIN not a credible source of information.

You're an idiot.
Let me qualify that statement the same way you qualify yours.
"because I said it."

WOW, now things are really getting accomplished. Why do we even bother with debating, this is so much more efficient!
Go crawl back into whatever hole you came from Vemoi.

 

wow you really look like an ass here...

The VID from youtube was posted on there from ANOTHER news source...

had you actually watched it, you'd have seen barney frank admitting their agenda is a long well planned multiple year attempt to get us to single payer system, in other words so idiots can understand it... you lose all choice and are forced to a government run system.

But if you need to dismiss and name call to make yourself feel better, please continue.

your qualifying statement lacks the primary ingredient for authority....fact. 

lol; Why would I even bother trying to rebut this? Not logic or reason would change your mind.
When will you realize I don't actually care what you have to say; I just enjoy picking out the glaring logical fallacies in hopes that somebody else gets a good cheap laugh like I do.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/r2streu/2009/07/30/rahm_s_brother_and_the_rationed_care_lifeboat
 

Yes a good laugh indeed.

 

The irony is delicious.

The irony is that a Canadian is having the audacity to try and tell an American what's best for him.

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Vemoi

Originally posted by Sabiancym

He wants to eliminate it by making the public option the better choice.  It's simple competition.  One that I support.

 

And that was quite the editing job.  I can make Sarah paling say she supports gay marriage and late term abortions using all her speeches if you want.

 

And it's not on the news because we are all out to get you Faxxer.  Run.

 

Spoken like a true leftist. Obama and the rest of the democrats are lieing their ass off, saying you can keep your insurance if you want and you are fine with that. Whatever it takes right?! BS the people as long as they can get this through.

Here is anothor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

"spoken life a true leftist" isnt an argument.
Youtube is not a reliable source of information.
Claiming obama lies according to yourself is AGAIN not a credible source of information.

You're an idiot.
Let me qualify that statement the same way you qualify yours.
"because I said it."

WOW, now things are really getting accomplished. Why do we even bother with debating, this is so much more efficient!
Go crawl back into whatever hole you came from Vemoi.

 

wow you really look like an ass here...

The VID from youtube was posted on there from ANOTHER news source...

had you actually watched it, you'd have seen barney frank admitting their agenda is a long well planned multiple year attempt to get us to single payer system, in other words so idiots can understand it... you lose all choice and are forced to a government run system.

But if you need to dismiss and name call to make yourself feel better, please continue.

your qualifying statement lacks the primary ingredient for authority....fact. 

lol; Why would I even bother trying to rebut this? Not logic or reason would change your mind.
When will you realize I don't actually care what you have to say; I just enjoy picking out the glaring logical fallacies in hopes that somebody else gets a good cheap laugh like I do.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/r2streu/2009/07/30/rahm_s_brother_and_the_rationed_care_lifeboat
 

Yes a good laugh indeed. 

The irony is delicious.

The irony is that a Canadian is having the audacity to try and tell an American what's best for him.

Cause logical arguments only exist in Canada?
Well no wonder we've had such problems!

It's happening again. I'm going to petition a mod to enforce a 2-3 quote per post rule.
 

Stop quoting to the 56789th power, nobody is going to scroll down much less read any of that.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

It's happening again. I'm going to petition a mod to enforce a 2-3 quote per post rule.
 

Stop quoting to the 56789th power, nobody is going to scroll down much less read any of that.

Shall we start a new one here?
Its just easier to hit quote... I think petitioning for a change in the forums feature list would get more accomplished than an aggravated off-topic post in this discussion.

Faxxer: 

This reminds me of the 2nd play out of Liberal tactics playbook...

Babbuun: Pidgeonholing about something being liberal won't make it go away. I've never read the tactics playbook you speak of.

Fishermage: Also it is the person who requires a COMPLETE explanation of everything everyone means in order to be able to speak, thus a shabby, lazy, childish way of shutting down discussion. It's pure garbage.

Babbuun: I didn't ask for a complete explanation. I asked for specific clarifications on puzzling generalizations such as "socialist" and "libertarian". You as a libertarian ought to know that there is a lot of seggregation in your political ideology: minarchists, social anarchists, voluntaryanists, etc, etc. Having argued with libertarians before I know not to generalize about them(since they've asked me not to themselves... This did not come from me), so I need the definition. Also if you are a libertarian in only being an anti-statist, you could have just said so as well.

Without context to what we're saying we might as well be discussing flowers and how pretty they are.

Originally posted by Babbuun

Faxxer: 

This reminds me of the 2nd play out of Liberal tactics playbook...

Babbuun: Pidgeonholing about something being liberal won't make it go away. I've never read the tactics playbook you speak of.

Fishermage: Also it is the person who requires a COMPLETE explanation of everything everyone means in order to be able to speak, thus a shabby, lazy, childish way of shutting down discussion. It's pure garbage.

Babbuun: I didn't ask for a complete explanation. I asked for specific clarifications on puzzling generalizations such as "socialist" and "libertarian". You as a libertarian ought to know that there is a lot of seggregation in your political ideology: minarchists, social anarchists, voluntaryanists, etc, etc. Having argued with libertarians before I know not to generalize about them(since they've asked me not to themselves... This did not come from me), so I need the definition. Also if you are a libertarian in only being an anti-statist, you could have just said so as well.

Without context to what we're saying we might as well be discussing flowers and how pretty they are.

Sorry if I say I am a lbertarian, it is not up to me to classify myself for YOU, since you are just trolling to divert the conversation, and have shown quite clearly that you really don't want to discuss the issue; merely want to disrupt it.

Obama is a socialist. He is a Hawaiian socialist. He is a socialist from Hawaii. If you don't agree, fine.

Context has been provided on these forums; had you take the time to read them instead of jumping in with accusations, you would have all your answers, However, you are obviously being disingenuous and merely want to disrupt things and get personal, since that is how you started.

I am a Connecticut libertarian. If that doesn't satisfy you, too bad.

If you want further context -- it is here. Stop being so lazy.

PS: to repeat: I am being VERY clear about myself and where I am coming from. You, however are not.

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Vemoi

Originally posted by Sabiancym

He wants to eliminate it by making the public option the better choice.  It's simple competition.  One that I support.

 

And that was quite the editing job.  I can make Sarah paling say she supports gay marriage and late term abortions using all her speeches if you want.

 

And it's not on the news because we are all out to get you Faxxer.  Run.

 

Spoken like a true leftist. Obama and the rest of the democrats are lieing their ass off, saying you can keep your insurance if you want and you are fine with that. Whatever it takes right?! BS the people as long as they can get this through.

Here is anothor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98

"spoken life a true leftist" isnt an argument.
Youtube is not a reliable source of information.
Claiming obama lies according to yourself is AGAIN not a credible source of information.

You're an idiot.
Let me qualify that statement the same way you qualify yours.
"because I said it."

WOW, now things are really getting accomplished. Why do we even bother with debating, this is so much more efficient!
Go crawl back into whatever hole you came from Vemoi.

 

wow you really look like an ass here...

The VID from youtube was posted on there from ANOTHER news source...

had you actually watched it, you'd have seen barney frank admitting their agenda is a long well planned multiple year attempt to get us to single payer system, in other words so idiots can understand it... you lose all choice and are forced to a government run system.

But if you need to dismiss and name call to make yourself feel better, please continue.

your qualifying statement lacks the primary ingredient for authority....fact. 

lol; Why would I even bother trying to rebut this? Not logic or reason would change your mind.
When will you realize I don't actually care what you have to say; I just enjoy picking out the glaring logical fallacies in hopes that somebody else gets a good cheap laugh like I do.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/r2streu/2009/07/30/rahm_s_brother_and_the_rationed_care_lifeboat
 

Yes a good laugh indeed.

 

The irony is delicious.

 

The irony is that a Canadian is having the audacity to try and tell an American what's best for him.

Half of what happens on these forums are leftists from other countries commenting on American politics -- something they are obviously ignorant about. It's tedious, ridiculous, and amusing and boring at the same time -- but hey -- if we don't allow people to make fools of themselves, we aren't being good Americans. Let them show off their ignorance.

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

Sorry if I say I am a lbertarian, it is not up to me to classify myself for YOU, since you are just trolling to divert the conversation, and have shown quite clearly that you really don't want to discuss the issue; merely want to disrupt it.

Obama is a socialist. He is a Hawaiian socialist. He is a socialist from Hawaii. If you don't agree, fine.

Context has been provided on these forums; had you take the time to read them instead of jumping in with accusations, you would have all your answers, However, you are obviously being disingenuous and merely want to disrupt things and get personal, since that is how you started.

I am a Connecticut libertarian. If that doesn't satisfy you, too bad.

If you want further context -- it is here. Stop being so lazy.

PS: to repeat: I am being VERY clear about myself and where I am coming from. You, however are not.

 

So you're calling me a troll for addressing a specific issue about semantics? And now you revert back to your original meaning and expect me, and everyone else that might just pop into these forums, to read all your forum posts to see what you mean by the word "socialist". I did read your and everyone else's posts on this topic, before "jumping in"... And I still wanted you to specify or take back what you said, because this topic sure as heck makes it clear that your use of the word is downright wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't trolls the ones that intentionally use false or deceptive tactics to further their agenda or just cause general mischief? Any deception or falsehood from my part is completely unintentional.

Also saying a state and a political ideology after it doesn't do much for me. It only specifies that you are a part of a party in a state.

Originally posted by Babbuun

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

Sorry if I say I am a lbertarian, it is not up to me to classify myself for YOU, since you are just trolling to divert the conversation, and have shown quite clearly that you really don't want to discuss the issue; merely want to disrupt it.

Obama is a socialist. He is a Hawaiian socialist. He is a socialist from Hawaii. If you don't agree, fine.

Context has been provided on these forums; had you take the time to read them instead of jumping in with accusations, you would have all your answers, However, you are obviously being disingenuous and merely want to disrupt things and get personal, since that is how you started.

I am a Connecticut libertarian. If that doesn't satisfy you, too bad.

If you want further context -- it is here. Stop being so lazy.

PS: to repeat: I am being VERY clear about myself and where I am coming from. You, however are not.

 

 

So you're calling me a troll for addressing a specific issue about semantics? And now you revert back to your original meaning and expect me, and everyone else that might just pop into these forums, to read all your forum posts to see what you mean by the word "socialist". I did read your and everyone else's posts on this topic, before "jumping in"... And I still wanted you to specify or take back what you said, because this topic sure as heck makes it clear that your use of the word is downright wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't trolls the ones that intentionally use false or deceptive tactics to further their agenda or just cause general mischief? Any deception or falsehood from my part is completely unintentional.

Also saying a state and a political ideology after it doesn't do much for me. It only specifies that you are a part of a party in a state.

I used a verb not a noun. I called you nothing. Obama is a socialist (that is a noun). I do not know what kind. I do not care what kind. If YOU care what kind, decipher it yourself. I defined socialist in the way I am using it. I excluded that which I think is NOT socialist to further help you. I gave you all the clarification I can based upon the information that the socialist Obama has provided.

You are intentionally using an incorrect and overly narrow use of the word -- a use that makes NO ONE a socialist, while my use definitely excludes a great many people. You also BEGAN with appeal to ridicule without explanation, another sure sign you are simply trolling.

Your behavior right from the start is enough to show me that you are not here to discuss anything -- but to disrupt that which you disagree with.

There is no deception in anything I am doing; however, I see much deception in what you are doing.

Take for the fact that you said you were "done" with this discussion which has turned out to be a flat out lie.

Obama is a socialist. If you don't like me calling MY president a socialist, tough. You may not call people who believe what he does socalists in your country, but that's the word we use here.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Faxxer

...

 

The irony is that a Canadian is having the audacity to try and tell an American what's best for him.

 

Half of what happens on these forums are leftists from other countries commenting on American politics -- something they are obviously ignorant about. It's tedious, ridiculous, and amusing and boring at the same time -- but hey -- if we don't allow people to make fools of themselves, we aren't being good Americans. Let them show off their ignorance.

Lol, I've made 0 comments about any american policy or your politics.
Logic isn't something thats different in other countries.
I enjoy a good debate; I post on the off change an actual logical argument pops out of somewhere and learning can ensue.

You might also not beleive this but we do have tasering in other countries. Crazy shit I know; the good ol' US of A isn't the only one dealing with the problem of public perception of Police